Andrew Weaver2015-03-31T14:28:48-04:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=andrew-weaverCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Andrew WeaverGood old fashioned elbow grease.Foreign Hunters In B.C. Should Be Forced To Take Bear Meat Hometag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2015:/theblog//3.69194622015-03-24T17:19:24-04:002015-03-24T17:59:01-04:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/
The fact is, British Columbians don't support this practice -- and neither do I.

A McAllister opinion research poll in 2013 found that 87 per cent of British Columbians believe that trophy killing should be banned. Not only that, but 95 per cent of hunters believe that you should not kill an animal if you are not prepared to eat it.

Like the spirit bear in the Great Bear Rainforest, grizzly bears are an iconic species in British Columbia. There is also significant debate about how many are left. It's important that we do what we can to protect them.

That's why for over a year now, I have been using my role as an MLA to advocate for the end of trophy killing of grizzly bears in B.C. I have called on the government to ban trophy killing while at the same time fighting for the rights of British Columbians who are hunting for sustenance.

A few weeks ago, I went a step further. I introduced the B.C. Green Party's first private member's bill with the aim of providing government with the tools it needs to put an end to trophy killing in British Columbia, while at the same time supporting B.C.'s resident hunters.

If passed, the Wildlife Amendment Act would add additional requirements to hunting in B.C. First, it would remove grizzly bears from the list of animals exempt from meat harvesting regulations. Second, it would ensure that edible portions of all animals harvested in B.C. are taken directly to the hunter's residence.

These provisions limit a foreign hunter's ability to come to B.C. for the purpose of trophy hunting, by making them responsible for removing the meat of any animal they kill and taking the meat back to their home, wherever that may be.

At present, a foreign hunter can simply give the meat away to a guide outfitter and fly home only with the trophy.

Hunters are already required to remove the edible portions from black bears. This bill would bring meat-harvesting standards for grizzly bears up to the same level. These changes would create substantial logistical challenges that would make foreign trophy killing significantly more difficult to do. And most hunters do not hunt grizzly bear for meat as it is often contains parasites that can lead to Trichinosis if not well cooked.

Let me be clear: The Wildlife Amendment Act isn't a silver bullet. It will not end trophy killing overnight. But it would be a substantial step forward.

There will always be people who will ignore our laws. The challenge with any piece of legislation is that its effectiveness relies on the government adequately resourcing and enforcing it. So far, the B.C. Liberal government has actively supported trophy killing, going so far as to ensure that foreign hunters are given even more opportunities to kill grizzly bears. This bill is an opportunity to open the dialogue once more on how we can pressure this government to amend their position on trophy killing.

I understand and empathize with the frustrations of groups like Raincoast Conservation Foundation, who have been working hard to ensure the long-term survival of grizzly bears in the Great Bear Rainforest. Preserving the pristine nature of the world's last great temperate rainforest is also a goal of mine. We are merely trying to accomplish it through different strategies.

If passed, this bill would send a very clear message. British Columbians do not condone any form of trophy killing, not just of grizzly bears in the Great Bear Rainforest.

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

]]>It's Time To Rethink B.C.'s Medical Services Plan Taxtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2015:/theblog//3.65642362015-01-30T14:14:31-05:002015-01-30T14:59:01-05:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/
Currently in British Columbia, individuals who earn more than $30,000 must pay a monthly flat fee of $72. This means that someone who earns $30,000 per year pays the same MSP premium as a person who earns $3,000,000 per year. MSP premiums are perhaps the most regressive form of taxation in B.C.

Progressive taxes, such as income or corporate tax, are based on the premise that those who can afford to pay more should pay more. That is, higher income earners would pay larger taxes than lower earners. This premise forms the foundation of our income tax systems right across the country.

Some may wonder why we have to pay provincial MSP premiums in the first place. After all, we are the only province in Canada to require them. The rest of Canada has moved away from monthly premium charges and instead uses general tax revenues -- primarily provincial income taxes that are based on taxpayers' ability to pay -- to acquire the funds needed to pay for Medicare services. In fact, after the Alberta government announced its plans to eliminate their premium charges for MSP coverage in 2008, B.C. was left as the only province to continue charging these individual flat-rate premiums. Every other province in the country uses a progressive system of health care funding.

In the 2014/15 B.C. budget, revenue from MSP premiums was expected to be $2.271 billion, whereas corporate tax revenue was estimated to be $2.348 billion. While the province does not have the fiscal resources to stop charging MSP premiums without replacing the revenues, there are progressive alternatives we should be exploring.

We need look no further than provinces like Ontario and Quebec, where health premiums are paid in your annual income tax return, rather than as flat-rate monthly levies. This approach avoids the regressive effects of monthly premiums since rates rise with income to a maximum annual level. For example, in Ontario the current maximum annual rate is set at $900 for taxable incomes of $200,600 and higher, with those individuals earning less than $20,000 paying no premiums; in Quebec, the maximum annual contribution is $1,000 for taxable incomes over $150,000.

There are also numerous other benefits in using our annual income tax return to pay health care premiums. There would be no need for the massive provincial bureaucracy to notify, collect, and chase after MSP premiums. Huge postage savings would result from eliminating monthly invoicing. And we would no longer have to endure the horror stories about people who've moved abroad for several years only to return to B.C. and have collection agencies chasing them for unpaid MSP premiums.

In eliminating the MSP, legislation would have to include a stipulation. Those employers who have negotiated MSP (taxable) benefits as part of overall compensation would have to roll the benefit cost into base salary.

Employees would benefit by seeing an increase in compensation up front. Employers would, too. When the government increases MSP premiums, employers are on the hook for a fixed cost that they have no control over. This is particularly problematic for schools and hospitals that are also funded by the government. The MSP premium increases are not funded, so these, and other institutions, have to find the money within their existing budget.

You can still ensure complete transparency of a progressive MSP premium by simply including it as a line item on the annual income tax return. It then moves from a regressive to progressive tax as in every other province in Canada.

Successive British Columbia governments have made a choice -- a choice to favour regressive over progressive taxation. It's a choice that puts the interests of the wealthy over the interests of low and fixed income British Columbians along with small business owners. And the choice is made, in part, to maintain the illusion of low taxes.

It is time for B.C. to replace MSP premiums with a more progressive and equitable approach to funding our health care system. Overhauling our current, regressive approach would be a positive step in addressing poverty and income inequality, and ensuring a sustainable health care system for now, and future generations.

It is a conversation British Columbians deserve.]]>B.C. Liberals Masquerading As Harper Tories Destroy Legacy Of Climate Leadershiptag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.60800882014-10-31T18:44:24-04:002014-12-31T05:59:01-05:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/party took a page from the Harper Tories playbook and destroyed a legacy of climate leadership in British Columbia.

In what will become known as a defining moment in B.C. history, the B.C. Liberals introduced Bill 2 (Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act).

Bill 2 represents a shameful betrayal of future generations. It dismantles key elements of former premier Gordon Campbell's continent-leading climate policies. And it replaces these policies with a made-in-Alberta, Harper government approach that will instead allow for a dramatic increase in greenhouse gas emissions in B.C.

Back in 2008, I had the honour of working with Campbell, his environment minister Barry Penner and the climate action team to outline clear, bold and practical steps that we as a province could take to address global warming.

Together with the government, academics, industry leaders, and First Nations, we developed a suite of policies that has allowed us to reduce our carbon emissions while growing our economy. Six years later, British Columbia's climate policies were still seen as leading the way in North America. Sadly, this bill now threatens to entirely undermine that success.

Here's why.

Under the bill, the B.C. government will repeal legislation that would have enabled us to enter a cap and trade framework with other jurisdictions. In its place, we will adopt new legislation that would see us embrace what's called an "emissions intensity" scheme along the lines of what Alberta and the Harper Tories have done.

Whereas a cap and trade framework would force us to reduce the total amount of carbon we emit into the atmosphere, an emissions intensity scheme would only require businesses to reduce the concentration of carbon produced per tonne of liquefied natural gas. In other words, as we produce more LNG, we will emit more carbon -- and this bill would not place any limit on the maximum amount of carbon we emit. That means our overall net carbon emissions can increase significantly despite the "emissions intensity" decreasing.

Here's the point: Our climate doesn't care about emissions intensity. Our climate cares about the overall magnitude of emissions. And as far as global warming is concerned, the magnitude of net carbon emissions is the only thing that matters.

So why are we going down this path? Because the government knows that emissions are going to skyrocket if we develop our LNG industry. And an Alberta or Harper government style emissions intensity model will provide the illusion of action on global warming at the same time as our overall magnitude of carbon emissions continue to increase. That's all this is: The illusion of action.

The simple fact is, if we pass this bill, we may as well say goodbye to all of the progress we have made, for we will be stepping into a new era as one of the most polluting provinces in Canada.

But it is not too late. We can once again be a leader in climate policy in North America. We have the opportunity to come together with other West Coast jurisdictions and live up to our word and our commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By seizing this opportunity, we will be able to move forward together in a united approach to tackling our emissions.

By looking to other promising sectors in B.C., such as our clean tech sector which tripled in size from 2012 to 2013, we can continue to open up new and vast sectors of our economy with immense economic opportunities for British Columbian businesses.

But we cannot do this if we turn our backs on the progress that has already been made. We cannot do this if we pass this bill.

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

]]>Northern Gateway Pipeline Needs 6th B.C. Conditiontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.55059862014-06-18T14:08:38-04:002014-08-18T05:59:04-04:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/
With its decision, the federal government is bulldozing this pipeline through the backyards of British Columbians. Time and time again, First Nations along the pipeline route have made it clear that they will not accept the Northern Gateway pipeline on their traditional territory. The District of Kitimat rejected the project in a recent referendum. And poll after poll has shown an overwhelming majority of British Columbians do not believe the project should move forward.

The federal government's failure to respect the will of British Columbians is particularly ironic. In 1980 when Trudeau introduced the National Energy Program, Albertans were outraged. They argued that it was utterly inappropriate for the federal government to interfere with their energy policy as it was deemed to be within provincial jurisdiction. Have we not learned anything from history?

First Nations along the pipeline route are among those who would be most impacted by its construction. Yet they have been largely ignored throughout much of this process. In fact, a Stephen Harper-appointed special envoy on aboriginal and energy issues recently issued a report that showed the federal government's approach to engagement with First Nations was inadequate.

In an address earlier this month to a conference for treaty negotiators, industry and government, the appointee Doug Eyford stated:

"I was struck that some of the communities that are today threatening judicial proceedings and civil disobedience were at one time requesting meetings with federal officials and making what I believe, in retrospect, were feasible proposals to address the environmental and other issues associated with the project. ... Regrettably, there was no uptake."

We owe our First Nations a debt of gratitude as they commence legal action to have their constitutional rights enforced. First Nations are using their resources -- resources that could be used towards the betterment of their communities -- to defend the interests of all British Columbians in court. This shouldn't need to be the case. It is the B.C. government that should be stepping up to defend the rights of all British Columbians. The spotlight is now on Premier Christy Clark.

The B.C. government has stated it has the power to stop the Northern Gateway pipeline through the 60 required provincial permits. Yet so far Clark and her government have sat largely on the sidelines, neglecting to make any concrete commitments one way or the other.

The B.C. government has stated that for any heavy oil pipeline to proceed, it must meet five conditions. Immediately after the Northern Gateway decision, Clark's government made it very clear that these conditions have not yet been met.

Yet even if their five conditions are eventually met, the fact is that on their own, they are not enough. The heavy oil that is to be transported on tankers along our coast is called diluted bitumen, or dilbit. A recent federal study has clearly shown that in the presence of suspended sediments, of which there are no shortage in our coastal waters, dilbit will sink when spilled in the ocean, making recovery difficult, if not impossible, and the damages potentially catastrophic.

We do not have the science or the capacity to deal with a dilbit spill. And none of Clark's five conditions address this. In fact, In its comprehensive 2013 submission to the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel the British Columbia government was very clear: "the province is not able to support approval of the project".

This is why I, together with the BC Green Party, have called for a moratorium on tankers transporting dilbit, adding this as a sixth condition on top of B.C. Liberal's existing five conditions.

With today's decision to approve the Enbridge pipeline, the deadline for meeting the five B.C. Liberal conditions has passed. It is time for Clark and her government to stand up and reflect the wishes of British Columbians by unequivocally rejecting the federal decision to proceed with the Northern Gateway project.

If the project is approved, we would see an increase from 60 to more than 400 heavy oil tankers leaving Vancouver harbour each year. Those tankers would then pass around the tip of southern Vancouver Island --an area identified by the federal Tanker Safety Expert Panel as being one of the most high-risk areas in Canada for an oil spill.

The thought of this enormous increase in tanker traffic alarms me, and I know I'm not alone. With more oil tankers comes more risk of an oil spill -- one that could destroy our pristine coastline and devastate our local communities. The whole idea undermines Vancouver's award-winning efforts to become the world's greenest city by 2020.

That's why I applied to be a full participant in the Kinder Morgan hearings. My constituents, and British Columbians across our province, will be affected by this pipeline and they deserve a voice in the process.

With a 15,000 page application to review, and only one month to submit questions, I chose to start by analyzing Kinder Morgan's evidence around oil spills: How likely are they? What impact will they have? And how effectively can we actually clean them up?

I also asked about whether my constituents, and others in the coastal communities, were properly consulted, given the impact this project could have on their health and livelihoods.

If the number of questions a participant submits is any indicator, I had nearly 500 questions on oil spills and consultation alone. Collectively, participants submitted thousands of questions on these and other topics as we try to better understand what this project will really mean for British Columbians.

Here are just a few examples of the areas I asked about:

1) Federal studies clearly show that, unlike most other crude oils, the diluted bitumen Kinder Morgan will be transporting through its pipeline is so heavy that when it mixes with suspended particles in the ocean, it sinks. If there is one thing we have plenty of in our coastal waters, it is suspended sediments. Unfortunately, Kinder Morgan's oil spill response is based entirely on the faulty assumption that the spilled oil would float. How are they going to respond when it actually sinks?

2) When assessing the impact of an oil spill and their ability to clean it up, Kinder Morgan based their projections on near-perfect conditions, including: 20 hours of daylight, pristine weather with only minimal waves, the availability of all staff and equipment to respond, and of course, floating oil.

They also assumed that they would have twice the response capacity available to them as currently exists. Despite these ideal circumstances, they only predicted that 45 per cent of the oil would be recovered. Even then, they acknowledge that their model isn't consistent with historical averages (generally only five to 15 per cent of spilled oil is ever recovered). I asked Kinder Morgan to redo their model analysis to offer realistic projections, based on credible assumptions, so that we can know what to really expect.

3) A typical heavy oil tanker will carry more than 100,000 tonnes of oil. Yet in their analyses, Kinder Morgan assumed a worst-case scenario that only 16,500 tonnes would ever "credibly" spill at a time. That may be true according to Kinder Morgan's calculations, but credible risk analyses consider the full range of scenarios, including one where the ship sinks and all of its oil is released. How can we know the full risk that comes with these tankers, if the worst-case scenario is excluded from consideration?

Ultimately, in applying to build their pipeline, Kinder Morgan is applying for a social licence from British Columbians. Earning that social licence begins with providing credible evidence that can stand up to thorough cross-examination.

Kinder Morgan has already advocated excluding oral cross-examination from the hearing process. Those who followed the Northern Gateway hearings know just how significant this change is.

What the above points suggest is that Kinder Morgan's submitted evidence is far from complete. After reading countless pages of documents it's pretty clear to me that neither Kinder Morgan, the scientific community, nor the federal or provincial governments have even a cursory idea of what would happen in the case of a catastrophic diluted bitumen spill in our coastal waters.

The bottom line is this: it's our coast, and we deserve better.]]>Bill 4: What's Next For B.C. Park Amendment Act?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.50741792014-04-02T18:59:47-04:002014-06-02T05:59:01-04:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/opposition to the recent passing of Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act. They are demanding its repeal because of fears around industrial development taking priority over the protection of our most significant areas of ecological diversity and natural beauty. I share many of their concerns.

The Park Amendment Act is a controversial piece of legislation that now allows the B.C. government to issue park use permits for activities that are not necessarily related to the mandate and purpose of our B.C. parks. The act allows for permits to be issued for two general categories: film production and research.

Previously, for a park use permit to be granted the applicant had to prove that the activity, for which they required the permit, was necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved. Bill 4 changes this.

Now, the environment minister has the ability to issue permits that fall under the vague and undefined term "research" for any type of "feasibility study" for any kind of "prescribed project."

Without any limitations on what these studies or projects might entail, without any guidelines for how the studies or projects are to be assessed, and without defining the term "research," the act, in essence, can allow for a park use permit to be issued for virtually any type of activity.

The language is so vague as to be utterly meaningless. In theory, I could sip a beer while watching Hockey Night in Canada and qualify and call this research as part of a "feasibility study" under this act. Conversely, exploratory drilling could also fall into this category.

To be fair, there are regulations within the ministry that do define the term research, and there are guidelines over assessing what kind of activities are to be allowed in B.C. parks. However, they are not law -- they are regulations, and they can be changed by the ministry without any public consultation, public debate, or public scrutiny. The passing of Bill 4 means that the law protecting our parks has been weakened, while the ministry has increased its power and adopted a "trust us" approach.

Boundary adjustments

Adding to the uncertainty surrounding the underlying motivation for this bill is the fact that a number of B.C. parks are facing possible boundary adjustments in order to accommodate major industrial projects. Under a Freedom of Information request submitted last year, the Ministry of Environment released which parks stand to be affected by certain projects.

For example, the proposed Kinder Morgan Pipeline Expansion alone is expected to affect nine provincial parks and will require significant boundary adjustments to at least three of these parks. Furthermore, given the B.C. Liberals push for natural resource development, it's no surprise that so many people are suspicious of this act, and are worried that its purpose is merely to expedite industries application process.

Holding the government to account

When it was introduced, Bill 4 clearly did not have the social licence to proceed. The proposed changes caught most people by surprise, major environmental groups condemned it, and the bill was strongly opposed in the legislature.

Working with the official Opposition, I spoke against the bill, highlighting the concerning and vague language used as well as the lack of public consultation and support for instituting these changes. I proposed that before passing in the House, the bill should at least go to a committee review stage, in order to give the government time to build up the social license needed for this bill and to address the many concerns voiced. I also proposed amendments to the bill, including adding a definition for "research," as a way of trying to ensure that the Bill did not undermine the mandate and purpose of our parks. Unfortunately, these were defeated by the government.

What happened in the House

Despite being given opportunities to engage the public, and despite the public outcry, Bill 4 received royal assent on March 24, 2014. In defending the bill, Environment Minister Mary Polak stated that "the intention of this amendment is to provide the legal statutory certainty for the granting of research permits, commercial filming permits, that we have granting but have been advised that we do not have sufficient legal certainty in order to proceed as we have."

She assured the House that the 30-page Park Act still "contains all the guidance necessary to ensure that we don't have mining in our parks, that we don't have drilling for oil in our parks, that we don't have major industrial activities taking place in our parks". As British Columbians, our job is now to ensure the minister is true to her words.

Should we be concerned?

At roughly 14 million hectares, British Columbia has the third largest park system in North America (second only to the federal parks system of Canada and the U.S.). Over 14.4 per cent of the province is protected under the parks system, and over 90 per cent of British Columbians have visited a provincial park at some point in their lives and 60 per cent regularly visit at least one park each year.

Over the last 10 years our parks have undergone 44 boundary changes totaling roughly 811 hectares of lost park land. Although only eight of these changes were for proponent-based projects (industrial projects), the rest being largely administrative in nature, this number accounted for almost 70 per cent of the total area removed from our parks. Clearly, although they only account for a small number of total adjustments, the proponent-based industrial projects are the ones that have the biggest impact to our parks.

Equally important however is that this is a relatively small amount of land when it is taken in the context of 14 million hectares that are protected. In addition, just a few weeks ago that number was increased by 55,000 hectares.

The good news is that even though this bill does allow for research permits to be granted, possibly for major industrial projects, the park boundary would have to be changed before the project itself could be approved.

For our provincial parks, any boundary change has to come through the legislative assembly. And here, at least, there is an avenue for public attention and debate to occur over a park boundary change. You can be assured that I will be closely monitoring any future park boundary changes.

Bill 4 is a piece of legislation that is far too vague and gives too much power to the ministry. It clearly did not have the social licence needed and continues to face strong opposition. If used inappropriately the Bill has the potential to undermine the legislated protection of our parks.

For these reasons I opposed its passage in the house, and will do whatever I can to ensure it is not used to abuse the underlying purpose of our parks, as detailed in the BC Parks Mission Statement):

B.C. Parks is committed to serving British Columbians and their visitors by protecting and managing for future generations a wide variety of outstanding park lands which represent the best natural features and diverse wilderness environments of the province.

The next steps

I've tried to lay out a balanced and fact-based approach to this legislation. You can read why I opposed the bill here and what I said in a subsequent post here.

I hope that this post helps people to understand this issue, its complexity, and the importance that will now be placed on ensuring that every boundary adjustment is transparent and fully understood so that our park system remains protected and continues to serve the interests of British Columbians.

If you are concerned about this act, here are some options available to you:

1 - Sign a petition

Some groups have called for an appeal to this Bill. It can be found here.

2 - Write a letter

The minister has explained that this was essentially a housekeeping bill -- one that gave the ministry the legal authority to do what it had already been doing. However, my main criticism, aside from the use of incredibly vague language, is that it clearly did not have the required social license to move forward. If you share this concern I would encourage you to write to the minister about your views on the process, and how in the future the government needs to first engage in public consultation, before imposing such a controversial bill. Please provide me with a cc of your letter so that I can speak to your concerns in the future.]]>Taseko New Prosperity Mine Rejection Based On Sound Assessmenttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.48808432014-03-02T01:03:15-05:002014-05-01T05:59:01-04:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) she concluded that the project "is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects", thereby scuttling the project for a second time.

Back in 2010, the former environment minister, Jim Prentice, also turned down the proposed gold-copper mine after receiving a CEAA environmental assessment which he described as "scathing."

Obviously the company was disappointed with the decision and issued a press release in response stating that "Taseko will proceed with the federal judicial review which commenced in December. The judicial review challenges certain Panel findings and the Panel's failure to comply with principles of procedural fairness."

But more surprising was the reaction of the B.C. government. In a CBC television interview Donna Barnett, MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin, was asked:

"Do you understand why the government made this decision." To which she replied, "I don't. This time and last time, both were environmentally friendly and I'm very disillusioned with the federal government."

When the reporter further noted, "But the environmental review board said it wasn't environmentally friendly." The MLA from Cariboo-Chilcotin responded, "Well, you know, there's lots of questions about that. And I think the whole process, in my opinion, was flawed."

Premier Christy Clark sent B.C. Minister of Environment Mary Polak her Mandate Letter on June 10, 2013. One of the first priorities of the new government was: "To eliminate red tape so that we can get to yes on economic development without needless delay."

I was concerned that getting to "Yes" might preclude "No" being an acceptable answer. So during budget estimates on July 11, 2013, I asked Polak:

"I have a few questions for the minister. I'd like to start by quoting from the minister's mandate letter, where it says that one of the goals is "to eliminate red tape so that we can get to yes on economic development without needless delay."

My question to the minister is: does that raise some concerns that it's in some sense precluding an outcome of an environmental assessment if your mandate is to get to yes, as opposed to determining whether yes is the appropriate answer?"

The minister responded:

"It doesn't, because of the phrase "without needless delay." What we have seen in the past, at times, in government is process for the sake of process, rather than process that gets to an answer. I don't see that as indicating it requires a granting of a certificate or a permit. What it does require is that we get that answer without having, as the letter says, needless delay."

I was reassured.

The CEAA was tasked with providing a detailed analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed Taseko New Prosperity Mine. Their work provided the foundation upon which Aglukkaq based her decision. This is a lovely example of "evidence-based decision-making."

"I think Taseko has to find a way to provide evidence that is scientific in nature that shows you can build a tailings pond two kilometres away from Fish Lake and you can build it in such a way as to not have it leach into Fish Lake and contaminate Fish Lake."

His statement provides an illustrative example of decision-based evidence making.

British Columbia is blessed with a vast array of natural resources; mining has and will continue to have a profound influence on the B.C. economy. But the reason why we have environmental assessments is to ensure that new mine developments meet certain criteria. Cutting red tape means expediting the assessment process, not undermining it.

Ironically, in 2012 the proposed Morrison Lake mine near Smithers passed an environmental assessment. Yet the B.C. government rejected the environmental assessment and so stopped Pacific Booker Minerals from developing the project.

In the case of the proposed Taseko New Prosperity Mine, the CEAA Environmental Assessment makes it clear: No means no, not a pathway to yes.]]>Let's Get Down To The Business Of B.C. Energytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.47624392014-02-11T20:38:36-05:002014-04-13T05:59:01-04:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/The time has come to have serious discussions about the difficult choices that lie ahead. Rather than wait for the federal government to rule on the Northern Gateway, and later, Kinder Morgan pipeline proposals, the time has come for us to take control over our own destiny. We have the potential to be a clean tech powerhouse, with both an economic and a skills training plan that could position British Columbia as a leader in the new global clean tech economy. The USA, China, and EU are all heading into renewable energy and knowledge based economies. Instead, B.C.'s future is looking more and more like becoming the super highway for non-renewable exports, with imported, short-term workers. Is this the direction we really want to go? It is not what I heard from the voters and it is definitely not a direction that I support. Especially when the opportunities for innovation and growth in the generation, transportation, storage and end use of renewable energy are profound.

So what does success really look like? As an MLA, it's my job to help move that conversation forward. I ran on a platform calling for B.C. to become a leader in developing the clean energy economy. With that comes the recognition that we need to position ourselves for a low carbon future. We are not using the wealth of today to position ourselves for tomorrow -- as Norway is doing. We need a specific and actionable plan to transition us from our current state to the one we desire in the future. We are long overdue for a conversation about economic diversification -- important, as our economy is based on a resource of limited value in an ever increasingly carbon constrained world. Canada is highly exposed to carbon risk. While we might not (nationally) put a price on carbon, other nations do. When enough political pressure builds to finally price it in Canada, our resource will become seriously devalued. Where are we then? Who's planning for this scenario?

We must find solutions to transition our society away from fossil fuels in general, and thermal coal, the single worst contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions, in particular. However we must also recognize that this transition will not happen overnight.

The British Columbia Green Party is a party of solutions -- principled, pragmatic, and focused on building a prosperous Green British Columbia. To do this, we must be prepared to think outside the box and give any proposal a fair hearing, assessing it on its merits and then deciding what is in the best interest of the province. But it is British Columbians alone who can make these decisions. I believe that our democracy should be healthy enough for us to discuss the options we have and difficulties we face, without rushing to judgment. Our province has great potential, but it is only when we can talk together, that we can move toward the future we deserve.

The BC Greens want to move us forward toward a sustainable world, and that begins by having an honest discussion that recognizes the fact that we are not yet there. That is why we are hoping to reinvigorate the energy debate in B.C. We need to discuss uncomfortable issues in an open and honest way.

When it comes to securing a viable economic future, one that protects the natural environment that we are blessed with in B.C., I would expect to find bipartisan support. As we begin this new sitting of the legislature, I am looking for MLAs who are serious about building an economic future based on our access to clean renewable energy, the innovation potential of British Columbians, and our desire to ensure fiscal, environmental and social sustainability for future generations.

To those politicians who claim to be so concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, where are your voices in opposition to the proposed expansion of thermal coal exports? To those politicians who claim to be concerned about heavy oil spills, where are your voices with respect to existing diluted butumen transported to Burnaby and through our coastal waters? You should be joining us in demanding that bitumen is upgraded to synthetic crude in Alberta and that heavy oil be kept out of our coastal waters. To those politicians who claim to be against pipelines, where are your voices with respect to the growing trend of rail transport and the fact that the common carrier obligation prohibits a rail company from refusing to carry oil?

It's time to get politics out of environmental policy and serious environmental policy into politics. After all, the environment really doesn't care which political party you belong to.]]>The Northern Gateway Pipeline Decision Puts B.C. At Significant Risktag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.44752832013-12-19T20:21:09-05:002014-02-18T05:59:01-05:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/
If you look at the numbers, B.C. is projected to receive roughly $1.2 billion in tax revenue from the Northern Gateway pipeline over the span of 30 years--that's only $40 million a year towards a $44 billion provincial budget. Yet, according to the UBC Fisheries Economic Research Unit, the economic cost of a single major tanker spill is estimates to be between $2.4 and $9.5 billion -- that's between two and eight times more than the total 30-year economic benefit of the pipeline -- in one spill.

Meanwhile, to date no oil spill response study has been able to account for dilbit; studies have only analyzed what would happen in the case of a spill from more commonly shipped crude oil. Unfortunately dilbit is unlike other crude oils in that whereas most oils will float on the surface, up to 50 per cent of dilbit will sink. Once that happens, we don't know where it will go, how it will interact with currents and tides or how we could reasonably clean it up. In some areas it is projected that only 3 per cent of floating crude oil could be cleaned up in the event of a spill. That number is already dismally low. With dilbit it would be even lower.

According to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' own recent submission to Treasury Board: "Behaviour models specific to dilbit spills do not exist, and existing commercial models for conventional oil do not allow parameter specific modifications."

Yet, we have an opportunity now to shift away from our old economic model of selling our raw resources solely for short-term profit and instead position ourselves for the long-term.
Let me offer two examples.

If we are going to develop the tar sands, and if we must transport oil along our coast, then at the very least let's refine it first. This would offer two benefits: First, it would offer greater economic benefit for all British Columbians, as we would benefit from a value-added refining and spin-off petrochemical industry instead of shipping those jobs to Asia. Second, it would significantly decrease the environmental impact of a marine-based oil spill, as refined oil products (such as gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel) are much easier to clean up than dilbit.

Let me be clear: this on its own is not an ideal solution and it does not protect us from the ecological consequences of a marine-based oil spill, but it certainly mitigates the risk when compared to shipping dilbit.

However, building a future economy based solely on the exploitation of a depleting resource will not steer us towards the low-carbon pathway that so many other nations are choosing to follow. That's why British Columbia should seize the opportunity of promoting the expansion of our clean technology (cleantech) industry. With our abundance of renewable natural resources, our highly educated workforce, our-business friendly tax structure and our reputation for innovation, British Columbia is uniquely positioned to become a leader in this sector -- a sector that focuses on the production, storage, transmission and end-use of renewable energy.

Just yesterday I toured Burnaby-based G4 Insights Inc's portable thermo-chemical facility designed to produce compressed natural gas for vehicular transport from wood waste. We need to grow our nascent cleantech companies, like G4 Insights, rather than allow them to be scooped up and exported to the US. The cleantech sector offers long-term, high-paying and local jobs. Yet developing this industry to its full potential requires the market to be sent a strong signal from government that this is the direction we want to head.

Today's JRP's decision is simply a recommendation to the Federal Government. Ultimately it will be Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cabinet who decide if the Northern Gateway pipeline project is approved. My challenge to both our Federal and Provincial governments is this: Let's keep dilbit out of our coastal waters, keep the jobs in Canada, and position ourselves for tomorrow by building Canada's capacity for cleantech.

Reality Check: The B.C. LNG Hyperboletag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.42334842013-11-12T17:48:18-05:002014-01-23T18:58:21-05:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/
Let's take a closer look at this 150 year number.

As noted by Metro News, the 150 year number comes from "domestic rather than global consumption" numbers. That is, it is obtained by taking the hypothetical resource volume in B.C. and dividing it by the current Canadian annual volume consumption of natural gas. In other words, it tells us how many years it would last Canadians for their domestic needs assuming no increase or decrease in national consumption rates.

But here's the problem... Almost by definition, LNG is for export not domestic consumption.

So let's do a reality check:

Every year BP undertakes a Statistical review of World Energy. As noted by BP, global natural gas proven reserves would supply current global production rates for 55.7 years. Canada contained (at the end of 2012) 1.1 per cent of global reserves. Doubling B.C.'s (not even Canada's proven reserves) would have a very small effect on global resource lifetime.

In other words, the 150 year number, and in particular, the statement by a B.C. government official that, "B.C. is very confident that the natural gas supply in the province can support long-term operations for 150 years or more," is utter nonsense and, in my opinion, irresponsible hype that is misleading British Columbians.

There is no doubt that the Montney Formation is an important natural resource for our province. This is largely because the shale gas formation contains condensates (liquids) in addition to the natural gas. These can be sold in addition to the natural gas. This is quite different from the dry gas fields in the Horn River shales near Fort Nelson, B.C. which require a North American natural gas price of around $5.00/million BTU to be economical. With natural gas trading at about $3.38/million BTU in North America, the Horn River play is not economical.

The analysis above is validated by a Nov. 4 news release from Canadian natural gas giant Encana noting that it was going to lay off 20 per cent of its staff in North America as well as dramatically reduce its shareholder dividend. This does not bode well at all for Encana's interests in the Horn River region of B.C.

Instead of chasing the falling fossil fuel economy of yesterday, B.C. should be heading towards a prosperous future by developing its clean tech sector -- the sector involved in the generation, transmission, storage and end use of renewable energy.]]>An Open Letter to Premier Christy Clarktag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.40651332013-10-08T18:33:09-04:002013-12-08T05:12:01-05:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/
Premier of British Columbia
Parliament Buildings
Victoria BC V8V 1X4

Dear Premier Clark:

I applaud the fact that your government has been consistent in requiring five conditions to be met before you will support enhanced heavy oil tanker traffic off our coast. Consistency is important in providing certainty to the public, business and investors alike. It is for this reason that I am writing to you to seek some further clarification on the second and third of your five conditions. As written, these conditions require:

"World-leading marine oil-spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.'s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy-oil pipelines and shipments."

"World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines."

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has identified that behaviour models specific to diluted bitumen (dilbit) do not exist. In short neither research nor data on the effects of dilbit released into a marine environment is available. In addition, the procedures, protocols, equipment and expertise that will be required to respond to a potential spill do not exist. This suggests that the current standard for a "world-leading" response is, practically speaking, a fairly low standard.

In my view, the province's May 31, 2013 thorough and comprehensive submission to the Joint Review Panel (JRP) did an outstanding job representing the interests of British Columbians. The submission specifically stated that the B.C. Government required an "effective" heavy oil spill response capacity before it could support a proposal. In that report, the government implies that its criteria for an "effective response" includes meeting specific standards for:

Removing dissolved oil from the water column;

Dealing with sunken oil in a water course;

Implementing a precise leak detection threshold;

Committing to a specific and realistic response time to any oil spill at any affected geographic location;

Ensuring accessibility of the pipeline year-round to respond to any spill, regardless of seasonal conditions.

In order to provide further clarity to the public, business and investors I have four further questions:

Could you please provide a detailed outline of the specific standards and criteria your government uses to evaluate the effectiveness of a proposal's heavy oil spill response capacity?

In your interview with Peter Mansbridge that aired on October 5, 2013, you stated that British Columbia is "woefully under-resourced" to deal with a heavy oil spill. You also acknowledged that B.C. is already at risk of a heavy oil spill, since tankers leave Burnaby harbour every week transporting dilbit from the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline. As I am sure you are aware, the product transported in the Trans Mountain pipeline has changed since it was initially constructed in 1963 and dilbit is a relatively new addition. Given the numerous concerns that you and your government have raised about our current heavy oil spill response capacity, will the proposals to expand the Trans Mountain pipeline or transport heavy oil by rail be subjected to the same specific criteria of "effectiveness" that you have laid out for the Northern Gateway proposal?

In this same interview you made it clear that you expect the federal government to provide more resources for marine spill response "before any more heavy oil comes off the coast". However, the Province's submission to the JRP clearly states that an effective spill response will "be impossible or severely constrained" in certain regions, regardless of available resources. How, realistically, will further Federal resources address the fact that effective spill response may not even be possible in certain instances?

In regards to the heavy oil that is already being transported out of Burnaby harbour as well as any additional heavy oil that is to be transported to the B.C. coast, would you not agree that it would make far more sense to refine that heavy oil in its entirety in British Columbia prior to shipping it offshore both to mitigate against the risk of a marine dilbit spill and to provide jobs and an economic stimulus to British Columbia?

I thank you in advance for your consideration of these four questions and I very much look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Weaver
MLA Oak Bay Gordon Head]]>I Joined the Green Party Because I'm a Scientisttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32339132013-05-08T11:43:49-04:002013-07-08T05:12:02-04:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/NDP is greener than the Green Party -- especially as her springboard for this claim was a so-called climate motion brought forward by the NDP that forgot to include a call for reduced greenhouse gases.

In fact, the NDP motion was so badly worded and misconceived that Elizabeth May, leader of the federal greens and Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands, could not vote for it. I couldn't have voted for it either. I guess, despite being a climate scientist whose work is recognized around the world, according to Megan Leslie, that means I am not concerned about climate action.

The reason I joined the Green Party of BC was not because I was yearning for power, or willing to parse the truth and join in the hyper-partisan spin of the major parties. I joined the Green Party because it is the only party to consistently support climate action -- carbon pricing, an end to fossil fuel subsidies, aggressive efforts in energy efficiency and demand-side management and the steady expansion of renewable and green energy. These steps would improve our economic performance, create tens of thousands of new jobs across Canada, while preserving a sustainable world for our children.

The only time a major party was willing to call for a tax shift, to reduce income taxes and increase pollution taxes, was in 2008 under Stephane Dion's Liberal leadership. And what party was first out the gate to slam him? The federal New Democrats. Then, when the BC Liberals announced a provincial carbon tax, one now widely supported across British Columbia, the BC NDP launched their "Axe the Tax" campaign. Now, in the 2013 provincial election, we have the NDP taking a better position, by broadening the scope of the carbon tax, with, ironically, the provincial Liberals calling for a freeze.

What Canadian politics needs is a party that is more interested in respectful debate and dialogue, in pressing for climate action as a daily commitment, than parties that swing with the winds of political expediency.

I never imagined I would be a candidate for any party. As a scientist, I am way outside my comfort zone. But when I look at my children and imagine what their future will be if we continue with politics as usual, I realized I could no longer sit on the sidelines.

The decisions being made in Victoria and Ottawa are too important to be left to the politicians. Here in British Columbia, the two major parties are willing to bet our province's future on fracking and natural gas exports. Green leader Jane Sterk was able to obtain a confession from Premier Clark in the debates that the energy from the Site C dam is intended for that LNG production. Meanwhile, renewable energy opportunities for BC are being ignored and critical infrastructure improvements, for efficient mass transit, are ignored.

Greens understand we will not be forming government any time soon. But we equally believe it is critical to have representatives in our legislatures who will support other parties when they have a good idea, criticize those who twist the truth, condemn those who block action, and work to promote cooperative, positive decisions to reduce greenhouse gases. Let's stop pointing fingers and work together to get the action we need.

]]>The Latest Proof of Global Warming? Adios Summer Sea Icetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18665872012-09-09T01:31:52-04:002012-11-08T05:12:02-05:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/Summer Mortimer and Benoit Huot continued their impressive medal haul at the 2012 London Paralympics. But more negatively, the federal Tories were up to more of their tricks putting fossil fuel interests ahead of pretty much everything else.

During this past week Arctic sea ice retreated to all-time lows, shattering the previous record set in 2007 by an area roughly the size of (ironically) Alberta. In a bizarre response, cruise ships are now bringing tourists through the inside passage to check things out, and our federal Minister of Natural Resources is in Vancouver trying to convince British Columbians that the proposed Kinder Morgan and Enbridge pipeline projects are a good thing.

Summer sea ice is nearly half of what it used to be just a couple of decades ago. And it is almost certainly committed to melting away in its entirety during the summer as a consequence of existing levels of greenhouse gases. But it gets worse.

On September 9, Andrew MacDougall, Chris Avis and I published a paper in the international journal Nature Geoscience. In it we quantify the magnitude of the permafrost carbon feedback to global warming that had been hitherto unaccounted for in previous assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The news is not good.

Instrumental records have clearly revealed that the world is about 0.8°C warmer than it was during pre-industrial times. Numerous studies have also indicated that as a consequence of existing levels of greenhouse gases, we have a commitment to an additional future global warming of between 0.6 and 0.7°C. Our analysis points out that the permafrost carbon feedback adds to this another 0.4 to 0.8°C warming. Taken together, the planet is committed to between 1.8 and 2.3°C of future global warming -- even if emissions reductions programs start to get implemented.

Canadians are concerned. Opinion poll after opinion poll reveals a high level of willingness within Canada to introduce policies to combat global warming. And the government repeatedly assures us that they get this.

For example, in June 2007 Prime Minister Steven Harper told world leaders that climate change was "perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today," and that "we owe it to future generations to do whatever we can to address this world problem." This oft-repeated mantra is exactly what Canadians want to hear from their elected governments. The federal government apparently understands the seriousness of the issue and so wants to do something about it. But when you scratch below the surface, it doesn't take long to find out how vacant and cynical these statements are.

Coming back to this past week, the much-anticipated new and improved federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired electricity plants leaked out. To no one's surprise, they are significantly weakened from what we had been told to expect. This one is particularly personal. Over the last year, the Tories frequently touted our study published in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change in February as evidence that the global warming potential of the Alberta tar sands resource is small relative to coal. What they failed to explain was that our overarching conclusion was that as a society, we live or die by our consumption of coal.

So here we now have a government willingly and knowingly committing future generations to ecological collapse and untold climate-related catastrophes. It's fully "knowing" since they have read, and selectively quoted from, our study on the warming potential of coal. It's "willing" because despite this, they are introducing policies that will ensure we have coal-fired electricity plants spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for decades to come. Will future generations hold these ideologues in Ottawa accountable for their actions? I certainly hope so.

And as the Arctic sea ice breaks new records, the federal government responds with its fourth headline-grabbing, yet issue-distracting, search for the missing Franklin ship in five years. Quietly, it sets in place countrywide medieval-style book-burnings as it shuts down and destroys the collections contained in scientific libraries at its federal laboratories across the nation. At the same time, we find out the feds are planning to build a multi-million dollar "world class" Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) in Cambridge Bay. But don't kid yourself; this has nothing to do with science.

In science you first ask a question that you want to address and then you put together the tools, instruments and programs to try and answer it. This is precisely what was done by Environment Canada in 1993 under the Mulroney government's progressive Green Plan. The Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL) in Eureka, formally known as the Arctic Stratospheric Ozone Observatory, was built to monitor, study and report on the status of the Earth's protective Arctic ozone layer. It was situated on Ellesmere Island, about 1,100 km from the North Pole for scientific reasons. Yet just when the ozone hole reaches record levels, the Tories shut down funding for PEARL. Gone is Canada's ability to monitor the Arctic ozone hole. And gone is the investment of tens of millions of dollars of Canadian taxpayer funding.

Instead, the Tories offer up a facility in search of science to justify its existence. There are no scientific questions driving this agenda. The establishment of CHARS is all about enforcing sovereignty in the North to pave the way for enhanced resource extraction, particularly in the oil and gas sector. Sure, there will be opportunists in the scientific community who will take advantage of the facility if it's built, just like barnacles will find and latch onto a new ship brought into a harbour. But the real question is: when will the federal government come clean with its agenda?

So as we move into the autumn of the second year under the Harper regime, the war on science and the environment continues. Is there no one left in the Conservative Party willing to stand up to this short-sighted and one-dimensional view of the world? Apparently not.]]>Tories War on Science Hurts Us Alltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15496522012-05-29T17:48:11-04:002012-07-29T05:12:04-04:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/Environment Canada's Experimental Lakes Area, cutting a smokestack emissions research group and a Department of Fisheries and Oceans contaminants program, I reread it today. Here is what it said:

Dear Dr. Weaver,

Just a quick note to say thank you for your efforts to make public the plight of federal government scientists. Restrictions on our ability to address the public are certainly in place and are being enforced. Like you, I suspect that part of the strategy may be to keep the public from knowing that we do anything to earn our salaries so that somewhere down the line, they will get rid of science in the federal government claiming that we don't do anything anyway...This attack on government science and scientists will have repercussions for science in Canada for years to come...

How prophetic this scientist's words were. But they are also deeply troubling.

It's become evident to me that the Harper government has little understanding of science in general, and the distinction between university, government, and industry research in particular (see my other post). It's also evident to me that the Harper government has an agenda: mortgage our future to maximize short-term profits from the tar sands. And in order to fast track implementation, they squash or remove any obstacles that might slow things down. Is shutting down key groups involved in pollution research and monitoring really in the best interest of the public? I think not.

Equally disturbing is the widespread muzzling of federal scientists.

The media play a critical role in a functioning democracy. First, they widely communicate issues of public interest in a timely fashion. Second, they act as watchdogs over those we elect to make decisions that affect our livelihood. Third, they provide us with a forum for public debate. When the media is stymied from getting access to information, and in particular science, the very foundation of democracy is at stake.

What we're seeing emerge in Canada is the dismantling of scientific institutions that have been in place for decades. These institutions have played important roles in ensuring the health, safety and welfare of the Canadian public. But who needs science when it can sometimes lead to inconvenient results? It's a lot easier for the Feds to simply feed media lines to the Canadian public. Besides, as George Orwell pointed out, Big Brother knows best.

Where are the real Tories willing to put the word "conserve" back into the Conservative Party of Canada? There must be a dozen or so sitting in the backbenches. Do they really want to be part of the legacy of destruction this government is bringing to Canadian science?]]>The Science Funded by Your Tax Dollarstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15496582012-05-29T07:52:24-04:002012-07-29T05:12:04-04:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/
University research is typically curiosity-driven. Individual researchers seek to answer scientific questions that interest them. They submit research grant proposals to federal funding agencies in the hope that they will convince their peers that these research questions and proposed methodologies are sound and worthy of support. Each individual research grant typically lasts between two and five years.

A successful university researcher will have to juggle several research projects with each one on its own funding cycle. Most university researchers are required to get all of their research support through external grants and have little, if any, ongoing direct research funding from their institutions. Over the years, their research interest will move from area to area as they seek to explore new scientific issues. However, it is this curiosity-driven research that typically leads to the greatest scientific discoveries.

One of the most important outcomes of university-based research is the training it provides for both graduate and undergraduate students and postdoctoral fellows. These so-called highly qualified personnel (HQP) take their knowledge and skills into the workplace upon completion of their degrees or fellowship terms. Both industry and government rely upon these university-trained scientists to fill the ranks of their own scientific staff. A consequence of the short term funding cycles and continuous turnover of HQP is that academic researchers are usually not able to sustain long term monitoring programs or dedicate many years to a single project. This niche is filled by scientific research conducted in the federal and provincial government laboratories.

Federal and provincial government research is almost always targeted and mission-oriented. For example, the Bedford Institute of Oceanography (BIO) in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia is Canada's largest oceanographic research facility. This federal government laboratory houses researchers from a number of federal departments: Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), Environment Canada (EC) and National Defense (DND).

BIO is charged with providing,

"advice and support to government decision making on a broad range of ocean issues, including sovereignty, safety and security, environmental protection, the health of the oceans, safe and accessible waterways, the sustainable use of natural resources (fisheries, minerals, oil & gas) and the integrated management large ocean management areas."

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has 19 research centres across Canada each with their own different focus. In St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Atlantic Cool Climate Crop Research Centre has a mission to "develop technologies which diversify and add value to rural economies in cool summer regions."

"conducts research on crop production, including fertilization requirements of crops, ecology and control of weeds, biology and management of crop diseases, genetics and breeding of barley, management of pastures and cattle, land resource management, and impacts of agriculture on the environment."

While university research is usually curiosity-driven and government science typically focuses on research in service of society, industry research has a different set of motivators. Industry research is normally conducted in order to sustain market competitiveness or to increase shareholder value.

The taxpayer ultimately pays for research conducted or funded by the government. Shareholder investments and corporate loans or profits provide the income source for industry resource. As a consequence, university and government research is expected to be publicly available, unless it is considered classified or secret as in the case of some research that might be conducted within the Department of National Defense.

Industry research is less open. For example, the taxpayer should expect to have access to the results from federally funded health research on potential side effects of a particular drug. However, a start up biomedical drug company would likely not want to publicly disclose all of its research until patents protected its products. What would a company do if its internal research determined that its products or actions were harmful to people or the environment? Would the company want to publicly disseminate this research? Should it be required to do so? What are its current legal requirements do so? What does fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders suggest that the company should do?

The distinction between public and privately funded research becomes blurry in the area of university-industry partnerships. University researchers are almost always asked to sign confidentiality agreements when they engage in research in collaborative projects with industry. Yet very often, industry contributions to a research program are matched by funds from government granting agencies. It is difficult to determine what if any of this research should be publicly available.

Whether scientific research is undertaken in industry, government or university based facilities, it makes little difference as to its role in the formulation of policy.

Science can never be used to prescribe a particular policy. However, science is able to examine the implications of various policy options. Policy can also be developed or modified to reflect the latest science. In the end, the formulation of policy requires engaging a variety of stakeholders including special interests, religious groups, and industry. It also requires dealing with ethical, political, legal, financial and social issues including any potential application of the precautionary principle.

Science should feed into policy discussions, but in and of itself science cannot and should not dictate what policy directions should be taken. At the same time, science and scientific uncertainty should not be deliberately misrepresented or suppressed by special interests in order to influence public policy in a particular direction.]]>